Do you really think it’s acceptable for the president to claim he ‘had to’ violate the Constitution rather than making his case to change the law?

But really can you explain how getting a warrant up to 72 hours after a wiretap detracts from our security?

Left by Preston on December 30th, 2005 at 7:11 pm

I must have missed that part where the President claimed to have violated the Constitution???

Again, you think he did. I don’t think he did. A lot of really smart people (such as the above referenced Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard Law School) don’t know for sure.

As for the 72 hour thing? I don’t care about it, don’t think it necessary, and don’t know enough about the nature of the surveillance techniques to know if it’s even feasible.

Left by Robbie on December 30th, 2005 at 8:31 pm

I suppose it’s possible to make up a fact pattern where what Bush did is reasonable. But it was clearly illegal, probably unconstitutional, and completely unnecessary. He needs to be impeached, and the conservatives (at least the smart ones) are beginning to realize that’s the case.

Left by Dan on December 30th, 2005 at 10:55 pm

Oh, Dan…at least I’m smart enough to admit that I don’t know enough to know if it’s unconstitutional or not (although I believe it to be). Even a Constitutional Law Prof. from Harvard Law School is not certain — but I’m sure you know infinitely more about Con Law, don’t you?

What President Bush and his administratation have done with these wiretaps, regardless of legality, is the right thing and has undoubtably saved lives and made our nation safer. Do you really think we shouldn’t be able to spy on terrorists making calls to and from our country?

If you do, then you are an idiot, and you should have your citizen revoked via an impeachment process (yeah, I know…but that’s about as reasonable as your “impeachment” cries).

Left by Robbie on December 30th, 2005 at 11:36 pm

As for the 72 hour thing? I don’t care about it, don’t think it necessary, and don’t know enough about the nature of the surveillance techniques to know if it’s even feasible.

What do you mean you don’t ‘care about it’? I don’t understand.

As for it’s necessity- it’s simply a bedrock basis of our government that no branch of the government acts unilaterally indefinitely. In what way does getting warrants hinder national security? I can certainly think how it reduces abuses such as those commited by previous presidents.

Why do the terrorists attack us, again? For our freedoms? Is this simply some attempt at appeasement?

Left by Preston on December 31st, 2005 at 8:18 am

That’s just the thing, RWR, there is room for disagreement on the constitutionality. So forget about that. As for the legality, there’s not really room for disagreement, but, still, go ahead and forget about that. The most mindblowing thing about this is its complete lack of necessity. If you don’t care to learn about the 72 hour thing and the other facts in this case, please just follow the lead of the conservatives who have looked at these things, and have decided that we really should not have a president who holds himself above the law.

Seriously, you should want your president to remain under the law. No matter how much you resist learning about the facts.

Left by Dan on December 31st, 2005 at 12:11 pm

I love these bandwagon arguments. “All these other unspecified, probably fictional conservatives agree with me, so you should too!” Bleh. Logical fallacy. A sign of desperation.

Heck, it’s constitutional (Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001)) for an American citizen to be arrested and jailed for a fine-only offense not punishable by incarceration upon conviction. The law allows a hell of a lot of things. It allows all sorts of warrantless searches and arrests. It does not prevent the government from unreasonable warrantless searches. Given that these were conversations with known al-Quaeda operatives, I’d hardly call these wiretaps unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

Maybe you don’t agree with what the law allows. That’s fine, but don’t take that wild leap to calling them criminal just because you wish them to be.

Left by Jason on December 31st, 2005 at 1:05 pm

Jason- the widely disseminated list of acceptable warrantless searches never included ongoing programs of spying. Yes, we all agree that there are instances when in the heat of the moment it is acceptable for the authorities to engage in searches.

But in what way is it conservative to hope for the overturning of a basic Constitutional principle?

At least some of the conservatives over at Free Republic fear the wrath of Hillary Clinton to not allow any President to have such power unchecked by Congress, the Courts, or the Public.

Left by Preston on December 31st, 2005 at 5:46 pm

the widely disseminated list of acceptable warrantless searches never included ongoing programs of spying.

Sure, when the ongoing targets are citizens. The ongoing targets were foreign agents. Huge, important difference.

But in what way is it conservative to hope for the overturning of a basic Constitutional principle?

I am hardly asking for “a basic Constitutional principle” to be overturned. I am saying that what Bush did is allowed by the Constitution. If you don’t like it, perhaps you should take steps to make it illegal rather than pretend it already is.

Left by Jason on December 31st, 2005 at 6:41 pm